Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

standpointmag.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#51

Post by CodeCube »

KUcxrAVrtI wrote: post #36
CodeCube wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference between: 1. Not liking something and 2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like. Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.

> 2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like. For those able to put words in order that article would take 15 minutes to write and 5 to proof read. >Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it. What would you do if th…

Lol, if the author tattoos themselves, it changes nothing. That would be equivalent to someone chopping off their own limb, getting a prosthesis, and then (being a mental giant that can put words in order) penning an article in 15 minutes (proof reading it for 5 minutes, of course) about why disabled folks shouldn't get prosthesis titled, "the hubris of man".

At the end of the day, keep your opinions about what other people do to/for themselves to yourself ... it's as simple as that. And when you choose to exercise your right to share that unrequested opinion, don't be alarmed when you get a middle finger in your face.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#52

Post by DanBC »

mprev wrote: post #8
oddeyed wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty typical for Standpoint. It's a Britsh, culturally conservative magazine, so the default position you might expect is that anything that Her Majesty wouldn't approve of is morally abhorrent

While Standpoint is culturally conservative, the way you've worded it implies that because it is British it necessarily mean that it is culturally conservative. A version of this could equally have appeared in a publication from any English speaking nation. However, the author -- Theodore Dalrymple (not his real name) -- is a particularly interesting character. He is almost exclusively pessimistic about humanity, wit…

To support your point, here's the wikipedia article about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple

> Regarding his pseudonym "Theodore Dalrymple", he wrote that he "chose a name that sounded suitably dyspeptic, that of a gouty old man looking out of the window of his London club, port in hand, lamenting the degenerating state of the world"

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#53

Post by badpun »

thom wrote: post #50
InitialLastName wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He seems to believe that everyone ends up in life where they deserve This is posed as a bad thing, but there are lots of people on this site who tell themselves this very thing.

Then I very much hope they do indeed get what they deserve.

A world where everybody gets what they deserve is a just world - is that so bad?

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#54

Post by InitialLastName »

badpun wrote: post #53
thom wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I very much hope they do indeed get what they deserve.

A world where everybody gets what they deserve is a just world - is that so bad?

I'd say that depends very much on who decides who deserves what.

Justice is inherently malleable and subjective. It's a thing we humans (as a society) decide to do to one another. As far as I can tell, it tends to lag the scales we're operating at.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#55

Post by pwinnski »

georgeecollins wrote: post #35

Everyone seems negative about this article but it struck a chord with me. Particularly: >> It seems obvious to me that if a person feels he has to tattoo himself in order to “express” his difference from others, he must have some difficulty in individuating himself, perhaps indicative (when this difficulty is on a mass scale, as it clearly is) of an individualistic society without individuals. Young people are almost…

I got my first and only (so far) tattoo at 45. I did not do so to express my difference from others, and do not have difficulty individuating myself. Nor do I care about individuating myself.

It took until I was 45 to decide on something I wanted to keep on my body forever.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#56

Post by lolc »

ciphershot wrote: post #48
lolc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole thing hinged on the two points that the author doesn't like it and that people who do it are boring, predictable individualist-consumerists. These are not points that needed making with me. So at the end when the author smugly predicts the tattooed masses how it will look bad with age, should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse with age? There was just nothing in there for me.

>> "These are not points that needed making with me." I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this. Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up? >> "There was just nothing in there for me" I'm guessing this is emphasis on the above point. >> "should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse with age?" No, and if you think he's making a trivially true comment then you're…

> Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up?

Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? That people are generally shallow is an observation that can be made about a number of topics and I don't see what is gained when singling out tattooed people. Subcultures do tend to look ridiculous to the outsider.

The fact that people get tattoos to look nice in the eyes of other people who appreciate it was not discussed seriously in what feels like willful ignorance on part of the author. Or in the words of a tattooed friend: "People with a stick up their ass do tend to leave you alone once you've got your face done."

> Anyone with a nice tattoo will lament the fact that it will fade, it will lose crisp lines, and it will look bad over time.

That's not a novel observation for me. What's subtle or funny about it? "Look at these people. They think they have a nice tattoo but watch them in twenty years!" (I know it's not funny anymore once it's bluntly stated anyway, but I'm having trouble understanding how the original can be considered funny.)

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#58

Post by ciphershot »

lolc wrote: post #56
ciphershot wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "These are not points that needed making with me." I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this. Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up? >> "There was just nothing in there for me" I'm guessing this is emphasis on the above point. >> "should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse with age?" No, and if you think he's making a trivially true comment then you're…

> Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up? Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? That people are generally shallow is an observation that can be made about a number of topics and I don't see what is gained when singling out tattooed people. Subcultures do tend to look ri…

Okay, before I continue this conversation further I just want to note that I understand your concern for the optics of an educated doctor appearing to condescend to a large group of young people, but I think yes, he does have much more insight than the average person on tattoos, and I think it's made in jest with a little cultural misunderstanding on humor.

I have a tattoo but I acknowledge I'm not an expert. I did take a class on the psychological and social constructs behind body modifications and clothing, but most people with strong opinions on a subject believe their factual knowledge is "above average," including myself. In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well.

Okay, so continuing...

>> Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway?

I'm just going to restate the first sentence of the essay here: "When I started as a prison doctor in 1990, I was both fascinated and horrified by the tattoos inscribed on the skins of the prisoners." I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic. This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article.

On the other hand, I think you've pointed out your chief objection clearly: People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say about. I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate you being explicit about it. As a matter of principle, I don't just disagree, but disagree very strongly with this statement.

>> That's not a novel observation for me. What's subtle or funny about it?

Ask anyone with tattoos, and while everyone "knows" that tattoos fade, it's much different when it's your tattoo. Tattoos are consistently listed at the top of the list of regrets young people make, that's a fact. I don't think it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later, even really nice, expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there. It's not just aging, it's fading and bleeding of colors. Ink on skin does not age the same way as on other media, and I seriously doubt anyone without a piece or working with clients can actually can predict what the tattoo will look like ten to twenty years later.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#59

Post by ashtonbaker »

DiffEq wrote: post #25
lolc wrote: post #11

A lot could be said about tattooing but this article falls short of providing anything of interest to me. I was wondering when we'd get to the part where the author explains why tattooing is bad. Turns out there's no reason against tattooing except cultural premises as far as the article is concerned. Also people who get tattoos have a personality problem according to the author. If you want to feel smug about not ha…

Yes this author makes a poor case against tatoos; so I will try to make one: Tattoos are bad because: 1. Needles 2. Infection 3. It doesn't just "wipe off". 4. Needles

1. They don't reuse the needles 2. Not common these days 3. Feature, not a bug 4. Again...

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#60

Post by ashtonbaker »

zaat wrote: post #18

All in all this is pretty hilarious and funny, however >More recently, in what is no doubt a manifestation of the desire to fit in with the majority, even dark-skinned minorities, whose epidermis is unsuited to tattooing, are having themselves tattooed in ever-larger numbers. smells a bit racist and ignorant to me, I mean, tattoos are part of African tribes culture for at least few millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org…

Also, the whole thesis of the article is that tattooing is a symptom of some societal problem, so naming that cause as "a manifestation of the desire to fit in with ... dark-skinned minorities" seems to imply that wanting to be like black people is wrong somehow.
Post reply on HN